I am completely with IIHS where stricter and stricter tests are introduced, as oposed tu euroncap which recently is going oposite dirrection where there is now little challange for largish cars in the frontal tests
The difference is that the IIHS isn’t at the mercy of the big automakers (who heavily lobby the governments around the globe; due to their economic size). But rather the insurance companies; who don’t want you nor your family seriously injured (or dead).
@Wasabi9111 never introduced small overlap, discontinued moderate overlap by replacing with moving 1.4ton carriage with 50+50kmh closing speed. The intention with closing speed is kind of good, but due to fixed and not too high weight, it is an easy test for heavyer cars. Prevous 64kmh partial overlap was more taxing for modern SUVs and most other non micro cars.
The logic behind EURO NCAP down grading the frontal test, was because large cars, and SUV's have a naturally low death rate in head on collisions. They would rather the design be accommodating to less severe accidents, while still challenging small cars. I think they should still have a 70kmh test, as well as a small overlap
IIHS seems to find a distinct way to up the ante every year and it’s paying off. Been a loyal subscriber for over a decade and I appreciate the work y’all do
I started watching iihs in 2016 and I remember the criteria was easier back then. The small overlap test was still new. Some cars still got marginal and poor in that test.
My utmost respect for IIHS and the people behind it. Also, I am glad Honda received the best rating. Hondas are nice cars and were consistently scoring good ratings in IIHS tests throughout the years, with minor exceptions only.
My dads friend got into a crash in a 2013 accord a few years ago whena Ford Excursion rana red light and was goin twice the speed limit and they hit the accord small overlap but no one in the accord got injured and their little kid only got a bruise and the ford ppl got injured@@SuperMrgentleman and my dads altima saved my mom from a 85 mph side impact from a van
@@SuperMrgentleman Sedans are only less safe because of the size of SUVs and trucks. As for pedesterians, it's a lot less dangerous to be hit by a sedan than a big truck.
Interesting…. I wonder why rear inflatable seat belts and seat torso side airbags never caught on. Is it bc they’re ineffective or mfr are too cheap to install them.
Exciting round to see, kinda expected it to turn out the way it did with the Outback and Accord being the only ones that passed. Edit: How come the Chevrolet Malibu was excluded from this round? Just realized that, only sedan in its class that wasn't tested.
God it’s creepy seeing how much even new designs fail in the IIHS new tests. My car received a top rating when it was new in 2014. Not super confident it would do even remotely well in the 2023 tests.
They used to only test front seat safety. They include rear seat now that’s why the safety rating dropped. The car didn’t get unsafe, it just fails their additional test.
It's a station wagon. The Forester is the SUV, Crosstrek/XV is the crossover. The Outback is in the Mid-Size Sedan class because it's the only other wagon for sale in the US Market. The other being the Volvo V90.
How does rear seat legroom come to play w the results? My husband is tall and needs to have the front seat pushed all the way back, which means my kids barely have any legroom in the rear seat. Considering how much fwd movement w the rear dummies, my kids would definitely hit the back of the front seats.
It means a higher risk of injury, for both your husband and the child sitting behind him. Try finding a car that has enough legroom in the second row to avoid this scenario, which, depending on how tall your husband is, might not even exist for a reasonable price. Many even compact minivans have second row seats that can slid further back however. SUVs on the other hand are using the available space much more poorly. You could have a child sit in the middle instead of directly behind him, if their child seat fits there. This is the safest place in a car during a frontal collision, but in case of a side impact or if the crash isn't perfectly head on, there is an elevated risk of injury due to the middle seat occupant colliding with the occupant next to them. This is a problem that has been known since at least the 1970s, but can only be solved if there is no middle seat in the first place and space for an airbag between occupants (so far, to the best of my knowledge, only available for front passengers). Third row seating if available, would solve your problem, but is of course extremely vulnerable during rear-end collisions, which is why I would only ever use it if there was no other way of transporting everyone.
Kind of suprised me too! Maybe it's because there was little to no injury risk in vital areas? But with that risk of potential ejection, I'd not put it above a marginal
stricter tests basically are 2 sided knife on one side, yes it could improve safety on these mid size sedans in the future versions on the other, manufacturers might not be bothered with this anymore and stopped its production altogether and only sell crossovers and SUVs
I'm not really suprised at the results. When it comes to manufacturers that consistently do well in the IIHS crash tests, Honda and Subaru seem to be ranked either near or at the top.
Unless the passenger causes the impact for it to break it’s not such a big deal windows in cars are tempered now so when it shatters it breaks into thousands of tiny little pieces not matter what causes it to break this prevents cuts and lacerations
There are solutions. The cheapest, which I suspect is what Honda is using here, is to have a literal ramp built into the seat cushion, which directs passenger movement upward instead of just forward and prevents submarining. Many manufacturers have this "technology", but most are only fitting it to front seats, because crash tests have traditionally neglected rear passenger safety. Honda is one of the few car makers who try to go beyond current crash test standards. Not always successfully, but this is one of those situations where it paid off. There are more effective, but costlier alternatives: In 2006, Renault introduced an anti-submarining airbag as part of their then aggressive push to build safer cars (which they have since mostly abandoned). It's under the seat and pushes the seat cushion up. As far as I know, this system has only ever been offered for front seats and has never been adopted by any other manufacturer, but I might be wrong on this. You can also integrate airbags into seat belts. Ford, Lincoln and Mercedes are offering those as options. They spread the forces of the impact more evenly across the chest. I also recall, but can't find it right now, a system that inflates the lap belt in order to prevent submarining that way. Mercedes introduced an airbag for rear passengers in their flagship S-Class in 2021. This one is built into the front seat, but there are also developments that, just like you suggested, hide the airbag in the ceiling, an approach that has already been used for the front passenger in the Citroen C4 Cactus many years ago, so it's proven technology. With the S-Class, it's an obvious idea given that this car is primarily used as a limousine to chauffeur people around. If it's like any other safety technology first shown in an expensive Mercedes, it'll gradually trickle down to more affordable models over the coming years, but based on how it went in the past, this might take decades until your ordinary family hauler has airbags for rear passengers. That said, if the likes of IIHS keep the pressure on, this process might speed up.
@@slapshotjack9806 5 things: 1) Yup. 2) Frontier isn't a midsize sedan, but I get your point. 3) On the subject of cars that aren't midsize sedans, just look at the Jeep Wrangler, how that design hasn't really fundamentally changed in decades, and how poorly it does on the various crash tests. (It rolls over on the SORB crash test.) 4) Vehicles that are based on older designs might not be re-designed to meet new crash tests (IIHS is voluntary, not regulatory), as they might have to re-certify the entire vehicle programme, which is costly and time consuming. 5) But that also goes to show how forward-thinking some older designs were as they are being evaluated against new crash tests that didn't even exist when the car was being designed back then.
What's easy to forget is that what's considered "bad" and "good" varies from year to year. The safest car of 1943 is a screaming metal death trap in 2023, and so will the safest car of 2023 be in 2103. If no risk of injury is acceptable for a car, we can't have cars.
@@SomeoneElseInTheComments Maybe we shouldn't have cars. Or at least maybe it should be way harder to be licensed to drive one. It's wild that we simply accept that simply going about our daily business every day requires putting your life on the line in traffic.
Thanks for the stricter tests
I am completely with IIHS where stricter and stricter tests are introduced, as oposed tu euroncap which recently is going oposite dirrection where there is now little challange for largish cars in the frontal tests
The difference is that the IIHS isn’t at the mercy of the big automakers (who heavily lobby the governments around the globe; due to their economic size). But rather the insurance companies; who don’t want you nor your family seriously injured (or dead).
What did the euroncap change?
@Wasabi9111 never introduced small overlap, discontinued moderate overlap by replacing with moving 1.4ton carriage with 50+50kmh closing speed. The intention with closing speed is kind of good, but due to fixed and not too high weight, it is an easy test for heavyer cars. Prevous 64kmh partial overlap was more taxing for modern SUVs and most other non micro cars.
The logic behind EURO NCAP down grading the frontal test, was because large cars, and SUV's have a naturally low death rate in head on collisions. They would rather the design be accommodating to less severe accidents, while still challenging small cars. I think they should still have a 70kmh test, as well as a small overlap
IIHS seems to find a distinct way to up the ante every year and it’s paying off. Been a loyal subscriber for over a decade and I appreciate the work y’all do
Absolutely! People don't think about this nearly enough when considering a new vehicule.
@mamba8_24: Same here. I always admire what IIHS is doing. They really don't mess around.
I started watching iihs in 2016 and I remember the criteria was easier back then. The small overlap test was still new. Some cars still got marginal and poor in that test.
I have a feeling the Top Safety Pick list will be a lot shorter this year…
1:34 this is super cool, hopefully they keep doing these sort of shots in these videos
My utmost respect for IIHS and the people behind it. Also, I am glad Honda received the best rating. Hondas are nice cars and were consistently scoring good ratings in IIHS tests throughout the years, with minor exceptions only.
IIHS, The bar has been raised. Let's see what the next generation of sedans can do to meet this tougher standard.
Lmao bruh is still buying sedans when looking for the safest cars lmao.
@@SuperMrgentleman Why not? Some sedans are safer than SUVs/Trucks, regardless of weight, it's about how the structure absorbs certain impact forces.
My dads friend got into a crash in a 2013 accord a few years ago whena Ford Excursion rana red light and was goin twice the speed limit and they hit the accord small overlap but no one in the accord got injured and their little kid only got a bruise and the ford ppl got injured@@SuperMrgentleman and my dads altima saved my mom from a 85 mph side impact from a van
@@SuperMrgentleman Sedans are only less safe because of the size of SUVs and trucks. As for pedesterians, it's a lot less dangerous to be hit by a sedan than a big truck.
@@SuperMrgentlemanlmao some people just need a good commuter car to get them from point A to point B
I wish the ford fusion was still made to see how it did with the inflatable belts
Interesting…. I wonder why rear inflatable seat belts and seat torso side airbags never caught on. Is it bc they’re ineffective or mfr are too cheap to install them.
@Wasabi9111 to cheap, ford and lincoln still make them
@@Wasabi9111 and mercedes puts them on the s class
Exciting round to see, kinda expected it to turn out the way it did with the Outback and Accord being the only ones that passed.
Edit: How come the Chevrolet Malibu was excluded from this round? Just realized that, only sedan in its class that wasn't tested.
Is it possible that the Malibu is being discontinued in the near future?
@@bandguymichaelYes, I do think Chevy was going to discontinue the Malibu soon enough, but I don't think it will be untill another year or two.
God it’s creepy seeing how much even new designs fail in the IIHS new tests. My car received a top rating when it was new in 2014. Not super confident it would do even remotely well in the 2023 tests.
They used to only test front seat safety. They include rear seat now that’s why the safety rating dropped. The car didn’t get unsafe, it just fails their additional test.
I can assure you, your car would not perform well in any new test. Just a fact of life
our 2013 altima was a tsp+ now its probably as safe as a tin can vs big new suvs
Jetta supposed to be a compact car, yet being put into the bigger group😂
It’s classified as a sedan
its based on the golf so its compactr@@slapshotjack9806
EXCUSE ME BUT SUBARU SHOULD HAVE FAILED !!! the head of rear passenger went under the side airbag and would hit the rear C-pillar and window
the forces and risks of injury were still low. and it would have a good rating if not for submarining
How many people have been hurt or killed by this taking so long
i thought outback was a crossover
It's a station wagon. The Forester is the SUV, Crosstrek/XV is the crossover. The Outback is in the Mid-Size Sedan class because it's the only other wagon for sale in the US Market. The other being the Volvo V90.
@@MBG141 I didn't know that. Thank you for sharing!
@@MBG141What about that one Buick?
@@xalataf3365 GM killed off the Buick Regal TourX a couple of years ago.
@@MBG141what about the Legacy.
The dummy literally hit the roof
That’s an outcome that would only happen once in a blue moon plus it’s pretty minor
I believe that the safety of a vehicle is the the true performance of a vehicle, not how fast or well it corners.
0:45 is this the same UNIT used for crash testing?
Accord W
How does rear seat legroom come to play w the results? My husband is tall and needs to have the front seat pushed all the way back, which means my kids barely have any legroom in the rear seat. Considering how much fwd movement w the rear dummies, my kids would definitely hit the back of the front seats.
The accord is very spacious especially with the seat all the way back
It means a higher risk of injury, for both your husband and the child sitting behind him. Try finding a car that has enough legroom in the second row to avoid this scenario, which, depending on how tall your husband is, might not even exist for a reasonable price. Many even compact minivans have second row seats that can slid further back however. SUVs on the other hand are using the available space much more poorly.
You could have a child sit in the middle instead of directly behind him, if their child seat fits there. This is the safest place in a car during a frontal collision, but in case of a side impact or if the crash isn't perfectly head on, there is an elevated risk of injury due to the middle seat occupant colliding with the occupant next to them. This is a problem that has been known since at least the 1970s, but can only be solved if there is no middle seat in the first place and space for an airbag between occupants (so far, to the best of my knowledge, only available for front passengers).
Third row seating if available, would solve your problem, but is of course extremely vulnerable during rear-end collisions, which is why I would only ever use it if there was no other way of transporting everyone.
How did subaru get acceptable when the dummies head went outside the car and smashed on the c piller?
Kind of suprised me too! Maybe it's because there was little to no injury risk in vital areas? But with that risk of potential ejection, I'd not put it above a marginal
stricter tests basically are 2 sided knife
on one side, yes it could improve safety on these mid size sedans in the future versions
on the other, manufacturers might not be bothered with this anymore and stopped its production altogether and only sell crossovers and SUVs
"and only sell crossovers and SUVs"
The *_Red Barchetta_* Modern Safety Vehicles (MSVs).
I'm not really suprised at the results. When it comes to manufacturers that consistently do well in the IIHS crash tests, Honda and Subaru seem to be ranked either near or at the top.
At 1:20 does the Camry get docked for the rear window shattering?
i saw that! i’ve never seen a rear window break in a frontal crash before
Unless the passenger causes the impact for it to break it’s not such a big deal windows in cars are tempered now so when it shatters it breaks into thousands of tiny little pieces not matter what causes it to break this prevents cuts and lacerations
Typical ToyoTAXI garbage
Why haven't they implemented air bags ro help catch the rear passengers . Either in the ceiling or the back of the front seat ?
Money?
Fill the whole cabin with foam. See "Demolition Man".
There are solutions. The cheapest, which I suspect is what Honda is using here, is to have a literal ramp built into the seat cushion, which directs passenger movement upward instead of just forward and prevents submarining. Many manufacturers have this "technology", but most are only fitting it to front seats, because crash tests have traditionally neglected rear passenger safety. Honda is one of the few car makers who try to go beyond current crash test standards. Not always successfully, but this is one of those situations where it paid off.
There are more effective, but costlier alternatives: In 2006, Renault introduced an anti-submarining airbag as part of their then aggressive push to build safer cars (which they have since mostly abandoned). It's under the seat and pushes the seat cushion up. As far as I know, this system has only ever been offered for front seats and has never been adopted by any other manufacturer, but I might be wrong on this.
You can also integrate airbags into seat belts. Ford, Lincoln and Mercedes are offering those as options. They spread the forces of the impact more evenly across the chest. I also recall, but can't find it right now, a system that inflates the lap belt in order to prevent submarining that way.
Mercedes introduced an airbag for rear passengers in their flagship S-Class in 2021. This one is built into the front seat, but there are also developments that, just like you suggested, hide the airbag in the ceiling, an approach that has already been used for the front passenger in the Citroen C4 Cactus many years ago, so it's proven technology. With the S-Class, it's an obvious idea given that this car is primarily used as a limousine to chauffeur people around. If it's like any other safety technology first shown in an expensive Mercedes, it'll gradually trickle down to more affordable models over the coming years, but based on how it went in the past, this might take decades until your ordinary family hauler has airbags for rear passengers. That said, if the likes of IIHS keep the pressure on, this process might speed up.
@@no1DdCI think the Mustang Mach-E also has that “ramp” under the rear seat.
Great work.
It would be intersting to see what happens to like 10-year old midsize sedans and how they would fare in this test.
Look at the 2020 Nissan frontier that one dates back to 2005 and it definitely shows why small improvements make a huge difference
@@slapshotjack9806
5 things:
1) Yup.
2) Frontier isn't a midsize sedan, but I get your point.
3) On the subject of cars that aren't midsize sedans, just look at the Jeep Wrangler, how that design hasn't really fundamentally changed in decades, and how poorly it does on the various crash tests. (It rolls over on the SORB crash test.)
4) Vehicles that are based on older designs might not be re-designed to meet new crash tests (IIHS is voluntary, not regulatory), as they might have to re-certify the entire vehicle programme, which is costly and time consuming.
5) But that also goes to show how forward-thinking some older designs were as they are being evaluated against new crash tests that didn't even exist when the car was being designed back then.
Theres no room for bad ratings, especially if theres a chance it could save a life.
What's easy to forget is that what's considered "bad" and "good" varies from year to year. The safest car of 1943 is a screaming metal death trap in 2023, and so will the safest car of 2023 be in 2103. If no risk of injury is acceptable for a car, we can't have cars.
@@SomeoneElseInTheComments Maybe we shouldn't have cars. Or at least maybe it should be way harder to be licensed to drive one. It's wild that we simply accept that simply going about our daily business every day requires putting your life on the line in traffic.
This is a test to give buyers a piece of mind when they are deciding on a new car and to give the manufacturer an idea on what’s needed to be improved
Lo que no viste es el guamazo que se da el maniqui de atras en la cabeza con el vidro.
For Me i perfer Honda Accord because it's best safer car
I agree. Every time I see these results, the manufacturers that seem to consistently do well is either Honda or Subaru. Both are good manufacturers.
quick! make every car even bigger! economy sedans will have a curb weight of 10,000lbs, minimum!
These cars are performing poorly, because their seats and restraint systems are insufficient. It has nothing to do with weight.
5 point seat belt is not efficient for this type of accident?
You need a ramp built into the seat cushion. If it's missing or insufficient, submarining occurs.
IIHS it’s time for a stricter updated roof rating too
5.00 Good
4.00 acceptable
3.00 marginal
2.00 poor
They do not test the roof anymore
they do test @@theclueguy3388
Nice "white out " aluminum -sprayed, chemtrail'd sky there @2:16.
Have you literally never seen an overexposed image before?
More like the Volkswagen Jettison amirite?
: )
You couldn't pay me to buy that ugly, lame and generic Honda Accord, no thank you.
missing out on a safe comfortable and good handling vehicle for a good price!? for it not being a sports car? couldn't be me
@@J7Haip Yeah because this thing is the only " safe comfortable" "good handling" if you say so, car for a good price out there. 🙄 Give me a break. 😒
Where the ToyoTAXI Cultist fartboys at?
accord: the official car of section 8
And yet the safest
@@GabrielLopez-yh7ry debatable
@@DrPepperCooled4090 that is true lol according to who 😭
Isn't that the Nissan Altima? 🤔